Chaotic good and evil mess, or true shades of grey?

[Sir Sorbus]

Just an interesting thought I had, upon reading one of the above comments. Something about Western Religions only seeing Good and Evil/White and Black?

What are your views on this sort of standpoint? I'm going to try to explain my method of viewing these things as a combination of logic and the application of scientific principles.


Well, I'm an IT guy, so if you'll forgive the analogy, I see it more like pixels. On your computer screen, there are no yellows, purples, blacks, whites, or, in fact, any colours other than red, green, and blue, in finite, discreet sources and amounts. When combined in different ways on the microscopic level, they can forge unusual results on the macroscopic level.

_{Another analogy I could use is a Nanotech self-assembly structure theory, but for those not accustomed to high level science, it would take a lot of explaining. (That being said, if you're interested in what I'm studying, shoot me a PM, and I'll gladly explain.)}

What I mean is, I don't see black and white. I see shades of grey, as is only natural. If I'm looking at a person, I will see a shade of grey. But it's more like it is pixelated on the microscopic level. There are no absolute greys, and there ARE only black and white, but the actions that form a person are so small, complex, and inter-wound that it is usually impossible to see it. If you were to focus in on a particular action, it might still appear grey, but that's because there are different levels of structure, where the blacks and whites are combined in different ways.

Again, if you'll forgive another technical analogy, it's also a bit like molecules. There are millions of types of molecules. But there are only 118 known elements, formed of 3 types of sub-atomic particles, formed of a few different quarks, etc. Now, the idea of black and white makes it a lot simpler, and it doesn't. For anyone familiar with binary, just because there are only two options per digit doesn't mean there aren't a lot of options. Using binary, I can count to 1023 on my fingers, because there are THAT many combinations of up and down fingers. (1024, actually, but the first one is 0.)
Chaos theory explains how a seemingly unpredictable system generally simply means that there are too many variables to be humanly calculated, simply because they ALL affect each other, forming a system of interactions with x² interactions per unit time, where x is the number of factors - making the "Chaos Factor", if you will, about x²t. When there are lots of . The inaccuracy of the prediction of the projectile path of a moving body has always been chalked up to chaos theory - until a few months ago, when someone took into account enough factors to make better sense of it all.
But you'll never see the pixellation, the molecular structure, or the pressure and wind fluctuations unless you can get impractically zoomed in or close. In the same way, a person could be formed of trillions of different good/evil "particles", but unless you can get ridiculously close, and untangle the chaotic interaction system, you can never really understand it, and it will just look like a grey mess - like all humans do.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a "Moral Microscope", if you will (as cool as that would be), as the whole idea of morals is an abstract concept.

For an example of TRYING to break up and analyse a chaotic system, take for example the character of Robin Hood, as was discussed not too long ago. Now, for the purposes of this analysis, say the total "Goodness" or "Badness" of a person is defined as a combination of their intentions, and their actions.
Robin Hood did many things, of course, so rather than trying to analyse him as a whole, look at one of his better known and more characteristic actions: "Stealing from the rich, and giving to the poor."
Also, as I said, chaos theory says that these sort of systems are inhumanly difficult to analyse due to many factors and minute interactions, so whatever is said will not be as "close in" as can be viewed, nor will it give an absolute answer because of this.
Now, what are the factors of the action?
The stealing.
The rich.
The poor.
Stealing.
Well, this has it's own factors.
Why was he stealing? - To redistribute the wealth of the population into what he saw as a more fair thing. Well, to break this up further, it becomes a matter of motive and opinion, and you can see where the chaotic interaction lies.
What was he stealing? - For ease, let's just say it was money. But the factors of this might be: What was the value of the money? How much did he steal? What would the money have been used for otherwise? etc.
How was he stealing? - Generally, direct robbery, rather than fraud or trickery. The factors of this might be: Did he kill anyone in the process? Did he treat him men well? etc.

From here, EVERY ONE of these questions can continue to be broken up into smaller factors, and whilst there are too many unknowns and chaotic interactions to ever find a true, absolute answer, the actions and motives do eventually boil down to black or white.

The same process may then be applied to the other categories.
{{{{{
The Rich
How rich are they?
How did they get rich?
What are they doing with their riches?

The Poor
How poor are they?
How did they get poor?
}}}}}

What is the intention/drive?
Was it a good heart, or revenge against those who outlawed him?
This is an unsure thing. As can be seen, the actions are FAR easier analysed than the motives, but the interaction between the two, and themselves, make the overall result very messy and hard to analyse.

When you have the absolute, core answers of all of these factors, you will end up with a lot of blacks, and a lot of whites. (Though a malicious indented murder might be a bigger value of blacks than giving your sibling a wedgie for stealing your lunch, for example.)
From here, it becomes a simple matter of addition and subtraction. Add all the whites, and subtract all the blacks. If it is positive overall, the analysed person/action/system is good, and the shade of grey of the analyte would be more towards the white side. If it is negative, then it is more evil than good. The magnitude of the determined value gives an indication of HOW good or evil the analyte is.
Now, we just analysed (or started to) one action of Robin Hoods. To analyse him as a whole, it's simply the sum of each of his actions, and his intents. So it just becomes the sum of the "alignment value" of the analysed action or motive.

The same process could be applied to any number of things: The benefits of a moral, economic or other decision (Game Theory), the evolutionary advantage of a given mutation (The Theory of Evolution), the "Goodness" or "Badness" of a moral analyte on any level, be it a reason, action, intent, person or group of people (The Sorbus Hypothesis ), etc. It really is a very broad, ambiguous way to analyse ANYTHING.

So yeah. Thoughts on Good/Evil polarity, or my method, or whatever?